AB281: Makes Nevada a Sanctuary State for Illegals We need lots of people to come to the hearing in Carson & Las Vegas. HEARING: Friday, March 29, 8am, Assembly Judiciary Carson City Room 3138, Video conferenced to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas MESSAGE: Vote NO on AB281 which makes Nevada a sanctuary state. You should be concerned about the safety of Nevada citizens rather than illegal aliens who have broken the law. The recent murders by an illegal alien in Northern Nevada accentuate the importance of cooperating with Federal Immigration Authorities.

Background: “No state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department shall detain a person on the basis of a hold request, except where there is an independent finding of probable cause.” This means state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities and clearly would make Nevada a Sanctuary State! It prohibits a state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department from detaining a person on the basis of a “hold request” from the U.S. Immigration Enforcement and the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, except where there is an independent finding of probable cause. A “hold request” means a request by a federal immigration authority that a state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department maintain custody of a person who is in the custody of that agency beyond the time the person would otherwise be eligible for release, to facilitate the transfer of custody of the person to the federal immigration authority. An “Independent finding of probable cause” means “a warrant which is based upon probable cause which is issued by a federal judge, etc”. A determination which is based upon clear and convincing evidence that authorizes a federal immigration authority to take into custody that person.

Cost of Illegal Immigrations to Nevadans In a special report by Federation for American Immigration Reform published in 2009, “The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Nevadans,” the author Jack Martin gives some startling numbers. But remember…the numbers are 8 years old and things are much worse now. “In 2008, the foreign born population in Nevada represented nearly one in every 5 residents (19.6%), and illegal aliens constitute nearly one in every twelve residents (8.1%). The share of children of immigrants is even higher. More than one-in-three (36.2%) Nevada residents under 18 had an immigrant parent.”

http://www.fairus.org/site/docserver/nv_costs.pdf “Nevadans spend nearly $70 million annually to educate the children of illegal immigrants in K-12 schooling. (2008 figures) An additional $45 million is being spent annually on programs for limited English students who are likely children of illegal aliens. Nearly one in six (15.8% in 2008) K-12 school students in Nevada is the child of an illegal alien, and this share has grown as the illegal resident population has grown.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used one or more welfare programs…and there is a child present in 86% of illegal immigrant households using welfare, and this is the primary way that these household access programs.”

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households “FAIR estimates that the annual fiscal burden on Nevada taxpayers associated with illegal immigration to be about $630 million (in 2008). This equates to an annual average cost of about $763 per native-born headed household in the state. In addition, there is a cost to the state’s economy resulting from remittances sent abroad that amounted to $618 million in 2006. From 2004 to 2006 remittance flow increased 38%. Estimated taxes collected from the illegal alien population are about $216 million.”

Christians will be subjected to Government Sanctioned Discrimination & Persecution

Oppose *AJR2 which overturns Nevada’s Constitutional Amendment for Marriage between and man and a woman.

Although, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned marriage between a man and a woman, if this Constitutional Amendment passes in Nevada, Christians will be subjected to government sanctioned discrimination & persecution.

When I asked the question during the Assembly hearing in 2017, which Constitutional Amendment will take precedence, AJR2 the gender marriage Constitutional Amendment or the Nevada Constitutional Declaration of Rights Art. 1 Section 4 protecting Religious liberty…the Legislative Counsel Bureau (attorney for Legislature) said in Committee that the newest Constitutional Amendment, gender marriage, would take precedent over religious Liberty. Goodbye religious liberty!!!

Please oppose *AJR2. There is no need to change Nevada’s marriage amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has already rendered it inoperative. However, changing Nevada’s marriage amendment will subject Christians to government sanctioned discrimination and persecution. Although clergy are minimally protected, church volunteers, employees, members and other religious organizations are unprotected. Individuals exercising their deeply held religious beliefs in their businesses will be subjected to religious targeting, discrimination and persecution. Please protect religious liberty. (Or write your own message) More information below.

Background: This Constitutional Amendment will replace marriage between a man and a woman which was passed by 70% of the people in two consecutive elections in 2000 and 2002. *AJR2 already passed the Legislature in 2017 and when it passes the Legislature this session it will go on the ballot. It will mean that schools will teach LGBTQ marriage (and everything that goes with it) on an equal basis with God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. It will mean that people in business will be forced by law to participate in supporting gender marriage or go out of business. Day by Day…bill by bill…we are losing our Religious Liberties.

Text of *AJR2: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AJR/AJR2_79.pdfText of *AJR2: Deleted in Red, Added in Blue, Current state law black,RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF 2 NEVADA, JOINTLY, That Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows: [Sec:] Sec. 21. [Limitation on recognition] Recognition of marriage. [Only a marriage between a male and female 6 person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.] 1. The State of Nevada and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender. 2. Religious organizations and members of the clergy have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage, and no person has the right to make any claim against a religious organization or member of the clergy for such a refusal. 3. All legally valid marriages must be treated equally under the law.

The Nevada Constitution in Article 1 Section 4 states: Liberty of conscience. The Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State…but the liberty of (conscience) hereby secured…”

The Nevada Constitution Ordinance provides “That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”

The Preamble of the Nevada Constitution states: “We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.

Oppose AB186 National Popular Vote Colorado has just passed NPV putting us only 89 electoral votes away from implementation of the National Popular Vote Compact

We must get 3 Democrats on the Committee to Oppose AB186

Article Below on how NPV Hurts Democrats

In order to defeat this in committee we must get 3 Democrats to vote against. We anticipate that the 2 Republicans will vote No. You can check to see if you live in their district at http://mapserve1.leg.state.nv.us/whoRU/ If you do be sure to mention it and get your neighbors to call Please contact them even if you are not in their district. CALLS are IMPORTANT!We are targeting:

Assemblyman Fumo (Democrat Clark Dist 21) who has said he is against but is listed as a co-sponsor of SB186 NPV: 775-684-8839, [email protected]

Assemblyman Skip Daly (Democrat in a swing district Washoe 31 so he cares especially about calls from his district) who said he hasn’t made up his mind. 775-684-8563, [email protected]

MESSAGE: Please Vote NO on AB186 National Popular Vote. It could hurt the chances of a Democrat winning the Presidency, especially if there is an Independent Candidate. It will make small states like Nevada meaningless fly over states in the Presidential Election( Or write your own message) More information below.

The following States plus the District of Columbia have already signed onto the NPV State Compact. Notice that every one of these states voted for Hillary Clinton in the most recent election. The states are listed with their number of electoral votes: California 55, Connecticut 7, District of Columbia 3, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 11, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, Washington 12, and Colorado 9 equaling 181 electoral votes. This means that according to NPV Compact they are more than 67% of the way to their goal or just 89 electoral votes short from putting the Compact into effect! If only a portion of the additional states not listed above voting for Hillary passed the NPV Compact, it would go into effect. This article explains how NPV could harm Democrats…Remember we are trying to get 3 Democrats to vote against NPV.The DANGERS of National Popular Vote

By Janine Hansen, National Constitutional Issues Chairman Eagle Forum The First Danger of NPV: The National Popular Vote Compact hasno minimum percentage for a candidateto be declared the National Popular Vote Winner. What this means is in a 3 way race a candidate could win with 35% of the popular vote or even less. If we look at recent Presidential Election history from 1992, we will see that Ross Perot, an Independent millionaire and self financed Candidate, received 19% of the vote most likely causing George H. W. Bush to lose his second term. Before Ross Perot withdrew and then reentered the race, he was polling at 39%. Although Ross Perot received no Electoral College Votes, in a National Popular Vote Election that does not matter. If he or some other Independent Candidate received 39% of the popular vote, they would probably have obtained enough votes to be named the National Popular Vote winner. Before the 1992 election Republican Bush was polling at 31% and the Democrat Clinton had 25%. This could happen again in the 2020 Presidential Election. Starbucks mogul Howard Schultz has announced he is running for the Presidency as a “centrist independent”. If National Popular Vote is in force Schultz as an Independent Candidate, could win the presidency with only 39% or less of the popular vote.

His candidacy could devastate the Democrat Presidential Candidate. Like Ross Perot he is a millionaire and could be self financed. Up to 42% of Americans identify as “Independents”. People are increasingly becoming disenchanted with both political parties. There are other third parties, which would also deprive the major parties of some of the national popular votes including the Libertarian Party, Independent American /Constitution Party, Green Party and others.

Because the National Popular Vote Compact has NO minimum percentage required for the NPV Winner we could elect a candidate with no national mandate. United States has had more than one 3 way race for the presidency. In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party and organized the Bull Moose Party. His success was to split the Republican vote so that William Howard Taft lost, electing Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt, as a former President and as a third Party candidate actually garnered more popular votes than the Republican candidate. Wilson received 41% of the popular vote with Roosevelt receiving 27% and Taft 23%. In 1860 when Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected there were actually four candidates in the race. Lincoln received 39% of the popular vote, Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat Party) received 29.5%, John Breckenridge (Southern Democrat Party) received 18%, and John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) received 12% of the popular vote. We know what happened with the election of Lincoln. He had no national mandate winning with only 39% of the Popular Vote. The stark divisions in the nation at that time resulted in the Civil War and the bloodshed and death of 620,000 Americans.

The Second Danger of NPV: There is No National Authority for determining the accuracy of the National Popular Vote for President. The Nevada legislative proposal AB186 is exactly the same as proposals in other states. AB186 requires on page 2 line 26: …the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate IN EACH STATE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and SHALL ADD SUCH VOTES TOGETHER TO PRODUCE A “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE TOTAL” for each presidential slate. Wow! So our Secretary of State is responsible for determining the validity of the presidential election vote in 50 states and the District of Columbia. And that is also true for each “chief election officer in each state.“ Who is the arbitrator if states don’t agree? There is no answer in the NPV Compact.

Currently, the Director of the Federal Register has been designated by the Archivist of the United States and is responsible for obtaining from the states the certificated results of the election. There is a careful process for determining the correct election results. There is nothing comparable to that well defined and safeguarded process in the National Popular Vote Compact. How will the public be able to trust the election results by 51 chief election officers when there is no national process to certify the votes? In the past some states have even failed to send their results to the Archivist of the United States.

What happens if, as a part of the Compact, Nevada’s Secretary of State designates a different National Popular Vote Winner than the one of the other states in the Compact designate? What if a Chief Election Officer of a state wherein the Popular Vote differs from the National Popular Vote “Winner” REFUSES to betray the voters of his state and does not certify the electors for the National Popular Vote “Winner”? Will the other States take that State to Court? Will it throw the election into the hands of the Supreme Court? What happens, as just happened in North Carolina, if Voter Fraud is discovered and the election is overturned? Does that nullify the National Popular Vote Total and nullify the Presidential election? Does it delay the election of the President throwing the nation into a Constitutional Crisis and political chaos? Will it result in endless recounts and lawsuits?

The Third Danger of NPV National Popular Vote sets up a system of betrayal of the Voters. Under NPV if Nevada votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate, but the National Popular Vote winner is determined to be the Republican or the Independent, the Secretary of State in Nevada will be forced to betray the Voters of Nevada certifying presidential electors for the candidate who did not receive the popular vote in Nevada. This kind of betrayal will infuriate the voters of Nevada and subject those who supported such a vote stealing scheme to their wrath of the voters! National Popular Vote creates instability jeopardizing what the Electoral College has provided for over 200 years—the peaceful transfer of power.

16 of 17 Counties in Nevada (all but Clark) voted against Bloomberg’s Universal Background checks. New Yorker Bloomberg poured $18 million into our state to force background checks. The statewide vote was 558,631 in favor and 548,732 only 9,899 difference. Statewide it was 50.45% in favor and 49.55% opposed. The results from all counties but Clark voting against Background Checks range from Washoe at the lowest with 54.34% against, Carson 65.65% to Eureka at 90.28%. Other rural counties range from 75% to 88.63%.

https://www.nvsos.gov/silverstate2016gen/ballot-questions/ New Mexico’s County Commissions faced with their state Legislature imposing Universal Background checks have begun to pass county Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions with the support of their sheriffs. “The purpose is to get the attention of Albuquerque and Santa Fe,” Sheriff Ferrari said. ”

As Sheriff, I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. As Sheriff, I want to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

“San Juan, Lincoln, and Eddy counties are just the latest to make the move and approve such resolutions. Quay, Union, Curry, and Socorro counties have all drafted resolutions that represent the latest push back against state firearms legislation.”

The Nevada Legislature passed SB143 Universal Background checks and Governor Sisolak signed it into law which goes into effect January 2, 2020. Text of Nevada’s SB143 Universal Background Checks. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/SB/SB143.pdf Nevada’s County Commissioners should begin their push back with similar resolutions to New Mexico.

Yesterday the Nevada State Senate introduced an outrageous abortion bill SB179 which removes from our law the requirement of “informed consent” before having an abortion, including making sure the woman is pregnant and informing her of how many weeks pregnant she is, what procedure for the abortion will be used, the proper procedures for care after the abortion and the risks after the abortion.In addition, the bill removes the provisions for parental notification for a minor child before they can have an abortion. These provisions were overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but have remained in our law. If we had an Attorney General who was willing to challenge it again with our new U.S. Supreme Court it could be reactivated. It is outrageous that the Progressive Democrats oppose parental notification and informed consent. They really don’t care about parents or girls and women but only their radical agenda which has now become apparent…even killing babies after they are born. SB179 is so extreme that it repeals NRS 201.150 “Concealing birth; penalty. Every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” What?!!! It will not be a crime to dispose of a child’s dead body! No hearing has been set yet. I have enclosed some information from Nevada Right to Life who we are partnering with in opposing this bill.

MESSAGE: Please oppose SB179. It is irresponsible to remove informed consent protections from abortion laws leaving women open to exploitation. Removing parental notification for abortion from our law is thoroughly disdainful of parents’ rights and responsibilities. Please protect our minor daughters from the abuse of others who do not have their best interests in mind. (Or write your own message)

MESSAGE: Oppose SB123 Citizens have many opportunities all year long including at the DMV to register to vote. They should take some responsibility for registering to vote. Registering to Vote on Election Day puts our election system at risk for fraud. (or write your own message)

Background: This bill allows people to register to vote on Election Day, for all elections including Primaries. To register to vote they must appear at one or more sites designated by the county or city clerk to register to vote, complete an application to register to vote and provide proof of identity and residence. The voter may vote only at the polling place where he registered to vote. Nevada’s law now allows people to register to vote 1) by mail by the fourth Tuesday before the election (that’s one week) 2) by appearing in person by at the office of the county or city clerk by the third Tuesday preceding an election (that’s two weeks), now we have automatic voter registration when you go to the DMV and you can register to vote online. Are people so irresponsible that they find it impossible to register to vote in advance?

The Problem with Same Day Voter Registration (Fraud): https://www.americanmajority.org/vote-fraud/the-problem-with-same-day-voter-registration/“Same-day Voter Registration requires the voter to complete the application and provide “proof of residence” documentation. Ballots for same-day registrants are counted in that election but the actual registration is not verified until AFTER Election Day…For example, in the 2008 election, 62,000 voters registered on Election Day ALONE in the City of Milwaukee. How many of those registrations were actually legitimate? But all of their votes were counted in the election.” Does anyone find it odd that 62,000 had forgone any other option for registering and decided to wait until Election Day?

MESSAGE: Oppose SB43 Auto Traffic Cameras which will give tickets. This is Big Brother and another scheme to pick the pockets of citizens. It is ripe for abuse with private companies holding way too much information on individual citizens. (or write your own message)

Background information: SB43 changes Nevada law to allow tickets to be issued through traffic cameras. The minimum administrative fine will be $50 and if you don’t pay in a month it goes up to $100. The purpose of this law is to increase revenues for local governments…another revenue stream. As of 2018 at least 7 states were trying to ban red-light cameras. One problem is that tickets are issued to the owner of the car whether or not they are driving and they have to prove they weren’t driving. Arizona State Rep. Travis Grantham, “I think everyone in the country should be concerned about this type of law enforcement action, especially when it’s so ripe with corruption.” In one case in Arizona in 2016, a former traffic light enforcement camera vendor was sentenced to prison for bribery and fraud. “The practice of privatizing law enforcement actions is just wrong,” Grantham said. “Every aspect of it is wrong. When you add the equation of for-profit into the mix, it presents a lot of opportunity for fraud and abuse.” Brantham said the third-party companies are holding too much data about motorists…

Sixteen municipalities have held public referendaagainst these programs, all successful. Major cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Raleigh and Houston have rejected red-light cameras after initially approving them. Almost every state with red-light cameras has spurred citizen opposition groups with mad-as-hell names like, “Ban the Cams”, “Wrong on Red,” and “Highway Robbery.” Americans feel rightly outraged when they believe others game the system to use the law as a way to pick their pockets. They get incensed to discover that contracts with private camera vendors can dictate policing and safety practices even when the public has weighed in against those practices.

Please pray for the Legislature and the Governor. The Whole Senate will vote today (Wednesday) at 11am on SB143 It’s important to email! Report Joint Hearing SB143 Universal Background Checks Creating a Culture of Compliance

Perhaps the most alarming testimony on SB143 was that of the attorney Rosen speaking with Senator Atkinson the sponsor. When asked a question about enforcement he answered that the real purpose of SB143 was to Create a Culture of Compliance! Because of course we know that only law-abiding citizens will obey the law and criminals never will. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were designed by our Founders to Create a Culture of Liberty and Individual Self-Reliance. The Joint hearing of the Senate & Assembly Judiciary Committees on SB143 on Tuesday, Feb. 12th, started at 8:15am and lasted until 5pm with a break for the Senate and Assembly Floor Sessions at 11am. The people opposing SB143 vastly outnumbered the proponents some 500 to 50. Everyone who was willing to wait nearly all day was given the opportunity to speak. The proponents ran out of people to testify but the opponents kept going until 5pm. I was extremely thankful and proud of all those who showed up at the hearing in Carson and Las Vegas. Each person including Governor Sisolak, and AG Aaron Ford were given 2 minutes to testify. It was fair in that way. Although we can anticipate losing this battle, the numbers and the excellent, well-informed testimony of opponents will have an impact, causing fear in the hearts of the Democrats. Keep praying for them. Just know that every person who came and every person who testified was a blessing to the cause of liberty. Every email and every call added to the weight of truth placed before our opponents. We don’t win every battle but as we seek the Lord and exercise our rights of petitioning the Legislature for redress of grievances and exercise freedom of speech, the Lord will bless our efforts. THANKS!!! The Judiciary Committees took a short break and the Senate Committee reconvened and voted SB143 out of committee on a party line vote with Democrats Senators Cannizarro, Harris, Ohrenschall, Marilyn Donder-Loop, and Melanie Scheible voting in favor. Republican Senators Hammond, Hansen and Pickard voted no. The Republicans complained about the language of the bill not being available until 11am the previous day which gave no time to submit amendments. Their concerns were disregarded by the Chair Cannizarro. The whole Senate then convened and placed SB143 on Second Reading which means the whole Senate will vote on SB143 today at their 11am session. We can expect a strict party line vote with 13 Democrats voting Yes and 8 Republicans voting NO. It’s still important to EMAIL. Keep up the heat!!!

We expect that the Assembly Judiciary will vote tomorrow morning at 8am and then it will go to the floor for a vote of the entire Assembly and then be sent to the Governor. I will send another alert on the Assembly. MESSAGE to Democrats on the Senate Judiciary

I am very disappointed in your disregard of public opinion and your fast tracking of SB143 for universal background checks which will not make us safer but will lead to law abiding citizens being charged with a crime. It will ultimately lead to gun registration. (or write your own message)

MESSAGE: All other Democrat Senators: Please Vote NO on SB143 universal background checks which will not make us safer but will lead to law abiding citizens being charged with a crime. It will ultimately lead to gun registration. (or write your own message) Sponsor of the Bill:

Feb. 11, 2019, In the Year of Our Lord 2018, 11:43am When you forward please delete bottom portion which says unsubscribe or someone will unsubscribe for you. Thank you for Acknowledgement. Please pray for the Legislature and the Governor.

It’s very important to attend the hearing, call and email!You can now share your opinion online because we have a bill number:Share your opinion online: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/We now have room numbers for the hearing Carson 1214, Las Vegas 4412

ALERT from Senator Settelmeyer 2/7/10SB143: “The background check legislation that was declared unenforceable by then Attorney General Laxalt will be heard Tuesday at the Nevada legislature. It will be heard at a special joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly Judiciary committee at 8:00 am. If you want to be heard please show up and testify. In order to be heard I suggest not being repetitive and just say me to or ditto if your point has already been said, but get your name on the record. (sign in)

The language has not been releasedand will not be available until Monday. Contact the members of Senate and Assembly Judiciary as well as the committee so your concerns are on the official record by email.”

Explanation: Background checks are currently required for gun sales if they are through a dealer. This legislation exempts close family members and people who are hunting together with some other exceptions. (See the language of the BDR) Private owners, if they want to sell a gun must go to a licensed dealer, and both the seller and the buyer must have background checks through the dealer and pay a “reasonable” fee to the dealer. Criminals already violate the gun laws. Only law abiding citizens will get background checks. As Professor John Lott’s book says, More Guns, Less Crime. Research shows background check have done little to lower crime rates.

HEARING: Tuesday,February 12, 8am, Be there early! Room in Carson City 1214 at the State Legislature. Teleconferenced to Room 4412 Las Vegas at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave. Watch online: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/

MESSAGE: Vote NO on SB143. Do not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Only law abiding citizens will follow a law requiring background checks not criminals. Do not impose background checks on law abiding citizens for private sales. When law abiding citizens have more guns there is less crime. (or write your own message) You can now share your opinion online because we have a bill number B143: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/Send your comments to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees so they will be on the record. If you are able send them in PDF format by noon on Monday. [email protected], [email protected]